Do you see anybody else surpassing 17 Slams in the sport of tennis at any point?

[Mike Sams]

If Federer retires at 17 Slams and Nadal is unable to break the record, do you believe somebody else at some point will break it? If you think about it this way, Sampras set the 14 Slam record only in 2002. It ONLY took 7 years for somebody else to come along and break it!
If somebody else emerges in the next few years and the competition is weak, he could go onto a tear and rack up a lot of Slams.
Nadal looked like he was closing in on it until Djokovic came to his prime. So likely somebody else in the coming years will set a new Slam record.
Basically Nadal is the best candidate to do it but I don't see it happening now. It will have to be somebody else down the road.

[monfed]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

If Federer retires at 17 Slams and Nadal is unable to break the record, do you believe somebody else at some point will break it? If you think about it this way, Sampras set the 14 Slam record only in 2002. It ONLY took 7 years for somebody else to come along and break it!
If somebody else emerges in the next few years and the competition is weak, he could go onto a tear and rack up a lot of Slams.
Nadal looked like he was closing in on it until Djokovic came to his prime. So likely somebody else in the coming years will set a new Slam record.
Basically Nadal is the best candidate to do it but I don't see it happening now. It will have to be somebody else down the road.

Are you alluding that Fed overtook Peter only because Fed's competition was weak?

And no,Ralph is very much still in contention to overtake Fed's slam count as long as he keeps winning RGs(realistically a minimum of 10/11 RGs )

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

If Federer retires at 17 Slams and Nadal is unable to break the record, do you believe somebody else at some point will break it? If you think about it this way, Sampras set the 14 Slam record only in 2002. It ONLY took 7 years for somebody else to come along and break it!
If somebody else emerges in the next few years and the competition is weak, he could go onto a tear and rack up a lot of Slams.
Nadal looked like he was closing in on it until Djokovic came to his prime. So likely somebody else in the coming years will set a new Slam record.
Basically Nadal is the best candidate to do it but I don't see it happening now. It will have to be somebody else down the road.

Obviously. Records are meant to be broken, as the cliché goes.

[joeri888]

Somewhere, someday, sure. With current conditions and technology its more possible than ever before. If a new Federer talentwise came up in a few years, I wouldn't bet against it. Don't see anyone from the next generation doing it though.

[-RF-]

In my lifetime Fed will hold the record. Imo Tennis as we know it will cease to exist in 50-60 years

[always_crosscourt]

I think it will be broken in the generation after Tomic's. So give it 10 years.

[Chanwan]

It should happen at some point - whether it will be by Nadal or some unheard of or even unborn player, is hard to say yet.
But presuming Nadal overcomes his injury or what it is he's dealing with, he should have at least 2-3 more RG's + whatever else goes his way. So that's pretty close already.

[Alchemy-Z]

It will be. Just in this era we might have 3 10+ slam winners


we already Have Roger (17) and Nadal (11)

and Novak is on his way (5) probably 6 after the AO this year.

[forzamilan90]

I doubt a male player will do it after Federer in my lifetime. Female? Much easier to do.

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by Chanwan

It should happen at some point - whether it will be by Nadal or some unheard of or even unborn player, is hard to say yet.
But presuming Nadal overcomes his injury or what it is he's dealing with, he should have at least 2-3 more RG's + whatever else goes his way. So that's pretty close already.

Nadal needs to win 7 more Slams to break it. Does he have 7 more Slams in him? Especially with the likes of Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Federer, etc who are all still very active and legitimate contenders in the Slams? If we do the math, Nadal won 8 Slams over 5 years (2008-2012). In the past 2 years he's won 2 Slams, both on clay. So if his Slam winning days are slowing down, does he have another 7-8 years on the tour to reach 7 more Slams to surpass the 17 mark? I don't think he will do it in the next 5 years as I don't think he can rack up 2-3 Slams per year anymore like he did in 2008 and 2010. I think it's likely 1 Slam per year for him.

[nadal_GOAT_king]

It would most likely take a while. I am certain we won't see it happening with the current generation of kids born in the early '90s i.e Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison, et al.

[TMF]

If any future player is going to break Roger's record he has to be:

-incredibly gifted talent
-a threat on all surfaces
-start winning slam at early age(unlike Nole started out late)
-consistently playing high level throughout his career
-almost injury free
-can't skip any slam event

[McEnroeisanartist]

Not happening. Federer is a once in a lifetime player if not once in two or three lifetimes. He is like Mozart, where you wonder if Federer is an extension of God.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Not happening. Federer is a once in a lifetime player if not once in two or three lifetimes. He is like Mozart, where you wonder if Federer is an extension of God.

Nadal won his first slam at a very young age, so did Borg, Chang, Becker. However, they lack a few attributes that I've mentioned above which limited their slam count. Sampras won his 1st slam(1990) exactly 3 years younger than Federer(2003), but he's no Federer.

[DunlopDood]

Hard to say, then again I didn't think Sampras' record would have been broken so soon.

I think this whole slam record thing is way overrated considering Rod Leaver would have at least 25 if not for obvious reasons. in the 70's and 80's no one played the australian open, it wasn't even considered that big a tourney, How may more slams would Mcenroe, Borg, and even Agassi, who only started playing there in 95, have? I guess in this day and age greatness has to be quantified, however I don't think its an indication of who is the greatest.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by DunlopDood

Hard to say, then again I didn't think Sampras' record would have been broken so soon.

I think this whole slam record thing is way overrated considering Rod Leaver would have at least 25 if not for obvious reasons. in the 70's and 80's no one played the australian open, it wasn't even considered that big a tourney, How may more slams would Mcenroe, Borg, and even Agassi, who only started playing there in 95, have? I guess in this day and age greatness has to be quantified, however I don't think its an indication of who is the greatest.

Well if you want go ahead and count Rod Laver's slam total including his actual pro majors he won while on the pro tour. 8 pro majors plus 11 actual slams. 19 total. That 25 hypothetical majors he "could" have won is just that, a hypothetical

[forzamilan90]

And BTW, OP should have just said in the thread title would anyone ever surpass Federer's total, because that 17 figure is not yet set in stone. He could win more, making your thread obsolete and not stand the test of time in terms of accuracy

[Hood_Man]

Yes. Someone will come along who has the physical talent, the full range of shots, and the will power and mental strength to achieve great things, but with the added bonus of having a clear goal to aim for.

That and having 32 seeds instead of 16 is making it easier for the top guys to reach the later stages on a regular basis, by avoiding the more dangerous "lower" ranked players earlier on. I don't think it's too wild a stab to imagine that Federer/Nadal and perhaps Djokovic have benefited greatly from that.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by DunlopDood

Hard to say, then again I didn't think Sampras' record would have been broken so soon.

I think this whole slam record thing is way overrated considering Rod Leaver would have at least 25 if not for obvious reasons. in the 70's and 80's no one played the australian open, it wasn't even considered that big a tourney, How may more slams would Mcenroe, Borg, and even Agassi, who only started playing there in 95, have? I guess in this day and age greatness has to be quantified, however I don't think its an indication of who is the greatest.

False premise. The slam that Laver didn't play was during the amateur, which all fans including Laver fans have conceded the field was incredibly weak. They take Emerson 12 amateur slams with a grain of salt. Even if Laver chose not to turn pro and stay as an amateur, we don't know how many slam he would win and it's only a guess. Let be nice and say he managed to win 17, but the amateur slam is worth 10x less than the modern slam.

Winning slam in the open era is not overrrated. If it is, there would be many players winning slams. How many player have won atleast 10 slams in their career. Only Fed, Sampras, Nadal and Borg. 4 players !!

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Well if you want go ahead and count Rod Laver's slam total including his actual pro majors he won while on the pro tour. 8 pro majors plus 11 actual slams. 19 total. That 25 hypothetical majors he "could" have won is just that, a hypothetical

The pro majors only had 8-14 players, they are equivalent to today's WTF. 6 of Laver 11 slams are from the amateur(before the open era).